On 9 November 2022, Xu Shaowen (“Xu”), a 33-year-old Singaporean male, was convicted of cheating and falsification offences involving the Professional Conversion Programmes (“PCP”) offered by Workforce Singapore (“WSG”) and administered by the Singapore National Employers Federation (“SNEF”), a programme partner appointed by WSG.

PCPs helped mid-career professionals, managers, executives and technicians undergo skills conversion and move into new occupations or sectors with opportunities for progression. 

The grant pay-outs included course fee subsidies and a salary support grant which was computed based on the employee’s monthly salary.

At the material time, Xu was a general manager and shareholder of 7W Consultancy Pte Ltd (“7W Consultancy”).

Xu pleaded guilty to conspiring with a director and shareholder of 7W Consultancy, in December 2017, to submit for himself a fraudulent application to SNEF for funding under the PCP. Xu falsely declared in his PCP application form that his gross monthly salary from 7W Consultancy was $5,800, and thereby deceived SNEF into disbursing the PCP funding amounting to $13,995. Full restitution has since been made to WSG.

In April 2018, Xu submitted another fraudulent application to SNEF for PCP funding for an employee of 7W Consultancy. At the material time, the employee was an information technology manager and a shareholder of 7W Consultancy. Xu falsely declared in the PCP application form that the employee was employed by 7W Consultancy as a deputy human resource manager and that his gross monthly salary was $5,600. Xu then falsified an employment contract to support the fraudulent PCP application. The said employment contract was submitted to SNEF. No disbursement was made by SNEF for this application as the application was subsequently withdrawn.

For his involvement in these offences, Xu has been convicted on one count of abetment by conspiracy to cheat under Section 417 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code, and one count of falsification of accounts under Section 477A of the Penal Code, and sentenced to 13 weeks’ imprisonment. Three other charges have been taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

A 35-year-old man and a 67-year-old woman will be charged in court on 10 November 2022 for their suspected involvement in separate cases of shop theft.

1. On 4 January 2022, the Police were alerted to a case of theft at a petrol kiosk along Geylang Road. A 35-year-old man was arrested at the scene. Preliminary investigations revealed that the man was in possession of a wireless charger, valued at $49.90, which was from the petrol kiosk. The man will be charged with one count of theft-in-dwelling under Section 380 of the Penal Code 1871.
   
2. On 12 July 2022, the Police were alerted to a case of theft at Plaza Singapura. A 67-year-old woman was arrested at the scene. Preliminary investigations revealed that the woman had, in her possession, various items from multiple shops located at the shopping mall, and taken bottle of tone-up cream from a store at Junction 8 on 3 June 2022. The items had an estimated total value of more than $500. The woman will be charged with five counts of theft-in-dwelling under Section 380 of the Penal Code 1871.

In addition, Tan Wee Siong (“Tan”), a 42-year-old man, was convicted in court on 23 September 2022, and sentenced to 31 months’ imprisonment, for his involvement in a series of theft-in-dwelling cases. Between June and July 2022, the Police received multiple reports of items stolen from shops at multiple shopping centres. The locations include People’s Park Complex, Funan Mall, Chinatown Point, and Parkway Parade. The stolen items had an estimated total value of more than $1,800.

Through follow-up investigations and with the aid of images from CCTVs and Police cameras, officers from the Central Police Division and Bedok Police Division established the identity of Tan and arrested him on 10 July 2022. He was charged in court on 11 July 2022, and subsequently convicted for:

1. Five counts of theft-in-dwelling under Section 380 of the Penal Code 1871; and
   
2. One count of theft-in-dwelling with common intention under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code 1871.

The offence of theft-in-dwelling under Section 380 of the Penal Code 1871 carries an imprisonment term of up to seven years and a fine.

When it comes to family, they are considered the most important and trusted by most people. But some incidents contradict the statement and raise an eyebrow.

A father is facing 13 charges of sexual offences for allegedly committing against his own biological daughter.

From 2012 to 2019

The alleged incidents happened to the girl from when she was 4 years old till she was 12 years old.

It started when she was still in kindergarten and he allegedly told her to perform an “act” on him in the toilet.

When she was in primary school, he allegedly started showing her indecent videos/content.

When she was between primary 4 to primary 6, he allegedly raped her and performed a number of acts on her in various locations such as at home multiple times, in the car and in the office.

According to Straits Times, the 36-year-old father is contesting the charges.

Here are some of the charges he faces:

• rape
• aggravated sexual assault by penetration
• showing pornography to his daughter.

The incident came to light when she told her friends and one of her friends told the victim’s mother and the school was alerted, The trial takes place in the High Court and some of her friends are witnesses, reported CNA.

In total there are 46 witnesses, which include school staff.

The girl is now 15 years old now and the father cannot be named to protect the identity of the daughter.

A video emerged online showing a couple of drivers having a dispute at Tuas Second Link during a traffic jam, and a little girl from the backseat flashed a middle finger at the OP.

The second driver had hit the first driver’s car, according to 8World News, and resulted in them having an argument.

The OP who posted the video onto Facebook, said that the other driver had hit their car and acted as though he had done nothing wrong.

The OP then scolded the driver and the girl at the backseat who flashed a middle finger at them.

A video also showed the other driver appearing to be squeezing into their lane, with the OP asking the other driver angrily why was he cutting into their lane when they didn’t do the same to him?

Both sides then threatened to report the incident to the police.

The OP then asked their driver to “just hit the other driver” so they can lodge a police report and claim his insurance.

Update: The OP’s Facebook post has since been taken down.